Probable Reason for the Bolivian Fascist Coup: Bolivia Has Huge Lithium Deposits

I am thinking that the fascist coup in Bolivia was due to lithium deposits, and I am really starting to think that Elon Musk was in on this coup. China and Bolivia are two countries that have significant lithium deposits. I believe that Afghanistan has some too, and some say that that is one of the main reasons we are over there with our damned army.

China’s are locked up and the US wants Bolivia’s lithium. A month ago, Morales nationalized the lithium deposits and said they were for the Bolivian people only. This was around the time that big foreign corporations were badgering him to let them develop the lithium deposits.

Lithium makes the batteries that all those cellphones run on. Maybe electric cars too. It’s a must-have element and the US wants to lock up a lot of the market for it. There was no way we were going to tolerate Morales keeping control over the lithium deposits for the Bolivian people.

Elon Musk is the US corporate leader who wants to get his mitts on that lithium more than anyone else. I always suspected he was a piece of crap but I could never quite prove it (though stories about how he forbids unions and grossly abuses his workers were suggestive), and if this is true, then I was right.

I’m starting to think that just about all corporate capitalist types are pure ratfucks. It’s like they can’t possibly be anything other than scumbags. If they try to act decent, they will get destroyed by the pond scum.

This is making me even more of a socialist. I’m also starting to think that capitalists will always support fascism and will always go fascist if it comes down to that. I now believe that capitalists will always hate democracy and try to destroy any Left government that gets anywhere near power.

I am thinking that capitalists will start wars over money and kill huge numbers of human beings just so they can make a sleazy buck. I mean how low of a person is that? Capitalists literally kill completely innocent people for money. They do it all the time, habitually, without a thought in their minds. That’s pretty low, like Ted Bundy low.

And if capitalists are doomed to be this way, then capitalism cannot be reformed, sorry. You can manage it like the Chinese and Russians are doing and use it as a carefully controlled tool to develop the productive forces, but you can’t let it take over and become a form  of Politics, like it is in most of the world. It doesn’t work. It’s never worked in the past, it doesn’t now, and it will never work in the future. Capitalism is doomed.

Alt Left: Thank You SJW’s: My Gay Cousin Rick: RIP

My recently deceased cousin Rick was gay, closeted deeply his entire life. He would never admit it to anyone though everybody knew anyway.

My aunt and uncle were in denial about his homosexuality, and he never came out. My uncle was always saying, “Rick will find a nice girl some day!” like a moron, and my aunt was hip to Rick and would cynically roll her eyes.

My Mom said, “Rick is the completely opposite of you, Bob. Rick’s never had one date with a female in his entire life.” 180 degree difference, like you two were flipped somehow and you became the anti-Rick and he became the anti-Bob.

She always emphasized one date as if this was very weird behavior. Even back then, this seemed weird. She suspected he was gay.

I met him at his place in Santa Monica once in 1979. I was a punker and he was a former hippie. Lived alone in a small dark apartment filled with books. I saw him in the daytime, but he kept the apartment really dark like it was Samuel Beckett’s apartment in Paris.

He hated punkers and thought they were just evil, so this led to a rather hostile, intense, and charged conversation.

Somehow I mentioned homosexuality. He got very angry and defensive. I shrugged my shoulders and said, “It’s not good or bad. It just is.” He angrily said, “That’s right. It just is.

He thought I was some homophobe, and actually am a bit like that, but I had no hatred for him for being gay, not that day or any other day. He was just a typical paranoid gay man who assumes you hate him when you don’t. He made some other remarks about drugs and gay sex, referring to poppers, and it was pretty clear reading between the lines of the conversation, that he was gay as Hell.

He died recently and this was finally confirmed to me after all these years, but my family acted like even divulging this decades-long family secret to me was incredibly offensive. They told me that he was gay for sure, and he had lived his life with a series of older men in various places in California. News to me after following him through 55 years of life always wondering.

But I guess I had no right to ask or even know this. So, even in death, my family wished to keep my gay cousin Rick locked into the closet, probably forever.

Closets are for clothes.

Somehow this was a big secret, it was offensive to discuss it, and I was a total homophobic bigot for even asking for evidence, after his death, that he was gay.

Thank you SJW’s!

Alt Left: Janice Fiamengo, “The TERF War”

Another absolutely superb video from Janice. Sadly, she identifies with the Right and hates the Left, while really she should only despise the Cultural Left, yet no one seems to be able to do that. Hate the Cultural Left? Ok, that means you hate the Left because the Cultural Left is the Left.

While both the Right and the Left insist that the Cultural Left is indeed the Left, and one cannot be a part of the Left while rejecting the Cultural Left, the Alt Left begs to differ. After all, that’s why we were created in the first place as the Anti-SJW Left or Anti-PC Left. But we are not down with most anti-SJW’s and anti-PC folks because almost all of them are stock conservatives or reactionaries, even the widely heralded but extremely flawed Jordan Peterson.

Our argument is that just because you hate the Cultural Left, you don’t have to go over to the Right. Nope, there’s an alternative – us! And also, just because you oppose Cultural Left boneheads doesn’t mean that the only way to oppose them is via Social Conservative Republicanism, which is arguably just as bad if not worse than SJW’s.

Nope, you can oppose both of these blind irrational or backwards ideologues in favor of a philosophy that opposes the Cultural Left on the simple grounds that it is against common sense, facts, truth, and science.

Of course you can still be on the Left! What was the Marxists’ insistence that their philosophy was a science and their belief in materialism and opposition to superstition, backwardness and obscurantism but a decision by the Marxists to place scientific truth at the forefront of human political theory and behavior?

Anyway, check out the video. Of course, Janice shows, as she always does, how feminism is inherently irrational, self-contradictory and opposed to not only science but truth and common sense themselves. The TERF Wars show once again how irrational feminism is and how it is based simply on reflexive man-hating without examination or criticism of its own theories.

Feminism is not science. It’s not even political science. It’s Politics, sure, but so what? A lot of utterly irrational ideologies fall under the category of Politics. Politics is inherently dirty, low-down, pathologically dishonest, and utterly emotional and irrational: that is its very nature. Saying that feminism is not a science but is instead a Politics is no compliment. Sorry, ladies. Back to the drawing board?

Alt Left: The Extreme Abuse of Sex Trafficking Laws

Here.

A Florida man was convicted of “sex trafficking” for buying the services of a 14 year old girl prostitute. He apparently knew she was 14, as she was advertised as being that age in the ads. Well, buying an underage whore is illegal. Especially if you know she’s underage.

If you don’t know and you think she’s over 18, the pigs may well prosecute you for buying her anyway, which is garbage. Now you know why I hate cops so much. I don’t even call them cops. I call them pigs most of the time.

What is happening here is that radical feminism, an insane philosophy pushed by people who appear psychotic, is now the ruling mentality of the US on prostitution. Here we have an alliance because feminist nutcases and the socially conservative Right around the issue of prostitution. MRA’s are right when they attack what they call the Feminist-Conservative Alliance which is waging war on men in so many ways.

Radical feminists make the insane case that all prostitutes are somehow victims of human trafficking. Ever buy a prostitute? Well, you not only bought a whore but you actually sex-trafficked that woman by doing that! The phrase sex trafficking itself is being radically abused so much that every time I read it I have read further to make sure this is real sex trafficking and not something else.

Jeffrey Epstein was said to be “trafficking” his little teen whores that he employed, apparently by having them come to his house and have sex with him for $300. Afterwards they were free to leave. When they got home they could go anywhere they wanted to.

Victims of sex trafficking are in a sense being kidnapped. They’re not free to leave. Sometimes they are literally enslaved but most of the time they are simply under the control of a pimp who is forcing them to prostitute themselves under the threat that if they leave the pimp, he will assault them violently or even kill them.

Sex trafficking is basically pimping and it’s all about women being prisoners forced to have sex with men by their captors.

Epstein was a pimp? Not most of the time he wasn’t. Epstein recruited teenage prostitutes, often from the bad sides of towns. Their families had little money and they were often in desperate straits.

All of these girls leapt at the thought of making $300 for the simple act of giving Epstein a handjob, something most of these teenies were probably already giving boys anyway.

News stories describe these little teen whores as “victims.” That’s laughable. It was their choice to come over or not. If Epstein called and she didn’t want to come over, all she had to do was say no. If she kept turning him down, she  got no more calls and hence, no more visits to Epstein.

Epstein could not have cared less. He’s just find a new little teenie whore. After all, Epstein was such a monstrous abuser that he was being deluged with requests from teenage girls dying at a chance to suffer horrible abuse by him.

Yet some of these poor, scarred womanchildren “victims” (actually just a bunch of crybabies), were so horribly damaged and ruined by this silly teenage whoring that they kept coming back for more. Many voluntarily returned to Epstein to  make another $300 for a handie. Some returned 20 or more times.

They must have been being horribly abused if they kept coming for more 20 or more times, huh? Poor girls!  Poor women! Women are crying! Others were so devastated by this horrible sexual abuse that they went out and recruited many new  girls to serve as little teen whores to be horribly abused for Epstein just like they were. Wow!

The abuse was so horrific that they came back more than 20 times for more and they even went out recruiting new girls for the money-train. My heart bleeds for those girls!

In a few cases, Epstein did appear to traffic women, as there were a few women who felt that they were stuck and could not leave. Many had their passports confiscated by Epstein’s partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell after being flown here from Europe. One girl tried to swim away from Epstein’s island only to be caught and forcibly brought back to shore where Epstein and Maxwell verbally abused her and threatened her about what would happen if she tried to run away again.

Ok, that counts as trafficking or pimping. She’s being trafficked if she cannot leave any time she wants. Everything else, no matter what it might be, is not sex trafficking.

Alt Left: I Guess Gay Marriage Wasn’t Enough

All right, this is just stupid.

You knew the Cultural Left would never stop with just gay marriage, right? Of course you did. Well, here ya go. This woman wants to marry two guys at once because these three adults all live together and all fuck each other. The two men both fuck the women and both of the guys fuck each other too.

Both of those guys look pretty damn faggy even though they are apparently bisexual. I got some news for you: I’ve known quite a few bisexual men. Bisexual men are often pretty faggy. They’re a lot more effeminate than straight men but in general not as effeminate as gay men.  And some are just straight up full-on masculine.

Most of them are basically just straight guys with a mild interest in men that they indulge in on a lark or as a perversion or kink. A lot of others definitely lean gay. And there are quite a few young gay men, even in the Current Year, who continue to hide under a false “bisexual” label. I’ve worked with a couple of them as a counselor.

In addition, there do appear to be some men who are “pure bisexuals” with a strong interest in both men and women. They’re usually not all that faggy but they can be a bit “soft.” A lot of them are studs who rack up scores of female lays. Some have three figure lay counts. Sometimes I wonder if their bisexuality is just a byproduct of their general hypersexuality.

Anyway guys, you don’t want to hang around with bisexual men. Like gay men, they never leave you alone, never stop trying to fuck you, and never take no for an answer. They’re like the guys the #metoo women complain about who don’t understand the meaning of no.

What sort of a woman is actually turned on by faggy gay and bisexual men? I will never understand this.

The Alt Left is for liberals and Leftists who think the perverse situation above in addition to being nonsense is something that should never be legally (or I would argue socially) sanctioned.

We probably do not have a lot to worry about because long term menage a trois’ – either two men and one woman, or more commonly two women and one man – are notoriously unstable and tend to last only a short while before blowing up, often with a lot of drama. Our culture hasn’t perfected the Mormon or Arab polygamy style yet.

Alt Left: Transsexual Insanity

An example of transsexual insanity.

All right, I confess that I prefer women with pussies or vaginas over women with dicks or penises. Even though women with penises/dicks don’t even exist. I still say that even if they did exist, I give thumbs down to that. If I wanted to fuck humans with cocks, I’d go gay or bi.

A woman with a cock just isn’t a woman to me, sorry. It’s like those drawings you got when you were a kid, “There is something wrong with this picture? Can you spot it?” I can. It’s the woman with the dick. That’s in the picture, and yeah there’s something seriously wrong with that.

If you wan to know what the Alt Left is about, the Alt Left is for liberals and Leftists who think this quote above is ridiculous nonsense.

Alt Left: All [Hetero]Sex Is Harmful – Janice Fiamengo

Janice Fiamengo, a fantastic anti-feminist Youtuber, doing a great episode on #metoo culture and its roots in radical feminism.

I had started down that road in my thinking in that I recognized that the whole theory of sexual harassment was dreamed up by two evil feminist bitches mentioned in this video – Katharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.

Dworkin was a fat, ugly Jewish dyke, but McKinnon has always been an attractive or even hot straight women, an extreme manhater nevertheless. What do these women do for sex anyway if they hate men so much? Invest in nice dildos?

The original sexual harassment was all about the workplace only, and it focused only on quid pro quo harassment, which actually made sense. Later, Dworkin and McKinnon brilliantly tied “hostile workplace” theory on to the original theory, and now we have a still workplace-dominated civil law with two prongs – “quid pro quo” and “hostile workplace.”

By throwing in hostile workplace these two bitches opened up a can of worms that is still overflowing at the top in the Current Year. And the #metoo thing went right back to McKinnon and Dworkin, two near-psychotic manhating bitches, and the hostile workplace theory that they concocted.

So I knew that the roots of #metoo were deep in radical feminist manhating dyke theory, and I thought it was important to point out that this was the foul seed from which this diseased vine sprouted and continues to wind its way across our land, with the infestation only getting worse as time goes by.

But Fiamengo takes my idea and goes much further with it into some very new interesting places along the same lines. She also points out some recent developments in #metoo theory which bode very ill for the future in that they are predicated on extending #metoo and rape theory into some very dystopian places.

Great stuff!

Alt Left: Banned from Alternet Again

Actually not banned but a lot of my posts got removed. I think I set it off with a post about the Brock Turner rape case along the lines of my post earlier. Then the commenter went through and vindictively removed every single comment I had made that way no matter what I said.

I have a hard time imaging a liberal man being so emotional, but liberal-Left “men” are hardly even real men anymore. They’re humans with male bodies who think and feel like women. They’re actually much worse than women themselves because at least women and nice to look, you can fuck them, and the sensible ones can be quite a bit of fun. There’s no benefit to the male feminist at all. He’s a pussy, a cuck and a gender traitor all at once. Hang ’em high!

On the other hand it may well have been a woman because that emo vindictiveness – removing every post I made just to be a cunt – is classic female behavior. An enraged woman is as good as blind. And the last time I got banned was for criticizing the Epstein case and calling the “victims” things like “little teen whores” which is precisely what those junior strumpets were.

Moderator is probably a feminist woman.

I’m trying real hard to decide who I hate more – American conservatives or American liberals. I really want to like the liberals because I basically am one from back before the movement got body-snatched, but they keep punching me in the face! And you hit a man enough times, and he might just start hitting back, you know. That’s just human nature.

Conservatives are fairly friendly but American conservatives are like…let me think of a good description…”retarded howling apes on PCP.” How’s that?

Blocked you, jackass. If you can’t figure out that “finger-banging” a woman when she has passed out and thus cannot give consent is rape, I don’t know what to say.

I never said he didn’t rape her. I just said it was difficult case. This guy is a flaming SJW faggot with his gay rainbow colors flying high for everyone to see and cheer on his glorious career in sodomy. I’m not against gay men if they were born that; in fact, I cheer them on. But I really hate SJW fags. They’re as bad as feminists or BLM or any of the rest of the Cultural Left scum.

A friend of mine is a bit of an Alt Left gay man. He’s my age. He calls himself a conservative but he’s actually a Marxist! He’s just a conservative Left type like me, left on economics but somewhat right on social issues. He calls these types “gay libbers” the old name for gay liberationists, the first name of the pro-gay movement in the West.

He also hates faggoty pride parades and all the rest of the in your face Gay IP disgusting nonsense. He says, “We gays all just need to get married and move to the suburbs and live just like all the regular normal people there.”

I cannot agree more with that statement.

Alt Left: The Teenage Girl Bullshit

Bumface and I having a conversation in the comments section. I don’t normally like to talk about girls that young because that’s way too young for me to even want to look at, but Bumface is our resident hebephile, so I will indulge him.

Bumface: Eva Ionesco is the youngest model ever to appear in a Playboy nude pictorial, since she was featured at age 11 in the October 1976 issue of the Italian edition of the magazine in a set by Bourboulon. In that picture, she was at a beach posing in nude exposing all female anatomy.

Another of her nude pictorials in the November 1978 issue of the Spanish edition of Penthouse, was a selection of her mother’s photographs. She made also appeared on the cover page of Der Spiegel at the age of 12 completely nude.The issue was later expunged from the magazine’s records.

What was it like living in such sexually liberal times?

RL: LOL no one cared. I can’t even remember any sort of furor about any of this BS. I can’t remember if there was any discussion at all of what this girl did, much less a furor. A Cream album had a topless 11 year old girl on it and it was actually allowed to be sold because no one cared and who gets turned on by a topless 11 year old human female anyway?

It was another era. Basically feminism, Female Rule, #metoo, rape/sexual assault paranoia, and all of the feminist insanity of the Current Year for all intents and purposes didn’t even exist.

And believe it or not, everyone was happy. Women never complained about any of this BS. People mostly just thought it was funny. Men and women liked each other and liked to fuck each other.

Totally unlike this insane Feminist Hell we live in now! As far as sex with children, most people were very much against it, but there was a huge firewall between little children and teenage girls which has been torn down by a bunch of drooling lunatics in the Current Year.

Bumface: Do you think it can ever happen again?

Things have gone so far downhill. I do not think that the mores of the 1970’s will ever come back.  Society has been too damaged by this puritanical feminist sex-hatred that even if the disease goes away (dubious) scars will remain for a long time.

Maybe 15 years ago, hundreds of millions of deranged, drooling, moronic pin-headed human beings got it in their head that anyone having sex with a teenage girl was a PETAFILEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

I am not sure how this mass insanity and nonsense started. Some say it was with the Internet. It also might have started with Sex Offender Lists, which began about 30 years ago after a few very serious cases in which young girls were murdered by sex offenders.

In the Current Year, the Teenage Girl Bullshit is being promoted by almost all women to their eternal discredit, a large % of the Christian Right, a lot of completely cucked married men who may in fact be eunuchs, and almost all liberal men, since a vast percentage of liberal men are PC nowadays. A friend calls it the Fundamentalist Feminist Alliance. There are a lot of complete dingbats, often married women, who are best called femiservitives.

I guess PETAFILE!!!!!! includes the teenage boys who do them too. Any man, even one aged 18-20, who has sex with an underage teenage girl is also a PETAFILLLLEEEE!!! I am a PETAFILLLLLEEEE!!! myself because I had tons of sex with underage teenage girls from age 16-20. That was 40 years ago when everyone did such things matters not. I am still a PETAFILLLLLEEE!!! for the rest of my life.

Back then, 40 years ago, it was nothing. No one really cared about this sort of thing. It was considered normal for teenage boys to fuck teenage girls (which is basically the only reason they even exist at all – so we males can fuck them) and vast numbers of young men continued to fuck girls aged 14-17 when they were 18-20.

Yes, some went beyond that, and not much happened to them. I could tell you a number of stories of my friends having sex with 14-16 year old girls at ages 23-30.

But after age 21, the word was out that you really had to watch it or knock it off or you might go to jail. All this Current Year Teenage Girl Bullshit was called “statutory rape,” and it was the subject of much giggling, laughing, and joking.

Everyone knew that teenage girls were horny as rabbits and that it was impossible to keep them from fucking males. So most Moms just slipped their teenage daughters birth control pills. Almost all sexually active high school girls were on the Pill, and most of them got them from their own mothers. Fathers tried to stop it but they were ineffectual like they always are.

The whole idea was that it was a well-known fact that teenage girls were as horny as women if not moreso, and teenage boys were as horny or even hornier than most men. The idea was that teenagers fucking was just fine, just don’t get pregnant. And if you get pregnant, get an abortion. So that is what happened.

It was also recognized that teenage girls, in addition to being horny as cats in heat, looked exactly like women and hence were attractive to not only all boys but to all men who were not gay or dead. People actually used to say that, “The only men not turned on by teenage girls are gay men and dead men.”

The attraction was acknowledged but men were urged to restrain themselves or they might get a statutory rape charge. No one thought statutory rape was really rape. Everyone just thought it was illegal intercourse, which is exactly what it is. Absolutely no human beings anywhere on Earth thought that fucking teenage girls was PETAFILLLLLEEEEE!!!!!!!!! or CHIILD MALESTABATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very idea that anyone would think that “statutory” was real rape or pedophilia or child molestation was laughable. No one said anything that retarded and if anyone ever did, I assume that everyone just laughed in their face, called them a prude, and told them they needed to get laid.

Teachers were periodically caught with girls and would for the most part just get fired. A very popular Black teacher, the only one at the school, got caught fucking a 15 year old student. I believe he was simply fired. It was a longstanding joke at the school and everyone just laughed about.

Generally not much was done to the men if they were still fairly young. Of course the girls always refused to prosecute the man as they do to this very day. This shows the absurdity of the crime – the victim herself even states that she is not a victim!

In many to most cases, the girl seduced the man, as these things usually unfold. I am not justifying these men falling into these girls spiderwebs. Instead I am pointing out that it takes two to tango and the girls are usually more instigators than victims in these cases.

Of course people had a low opinion of actual pedophiles and child molesters but those terms were reserved for men who had sex with children under the age of 13.

In other words, back then, everyone was sane. The world was sane. Most humans you met were sane people instead of the dangerous wild-eyed retards of the Current Year. You could wake up in the morning, look up at the ceiling and smile, knowing that you lived in a world that was run and populated by sane people.

There were lots of jokes about jailbait and whatnot with the recognition that this is exactly what these girls were – a very tempting bait that if men fell for it, could land them in jail.

I do remember one case of a man in my area in his 50’s who lived alone. He had pot and cocaine and he had teenage girls from the neighborhood coming around all the time. He would give them free pot and coke if they fucked him. So of course teenage temptresses came from next door all the way to Timbuktu to fuck this guy and get their free dope. I believe this went on for some time.

Well, he got caught and I remember that he got three years in prison for fucking some 15 year old girls. I remember reading about it in the paper and talking to my family about it, but everyone mostly just starting laughing because the whole idea of jailbaits and statutory was considered hilarious, which of course it is.

But this guy went down though because of the huge age discrepancy. He was 53 years old so society reacted rather harshly. It would have been different if he was 33 and if he was 23, most people might just say leave the poor alone, dammit. Because back then people believed in the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Male thinking, not female thinking, ruled society, and both sexes were better off for it.

Alt Left: The Truth Is That Even Women Would Rather Be Ruled by Men

Everywhere on Earth you allow women to take power, they will always, without fail, impose Female Rule or Feminist Rule.

I don’t just blame women for this. This is simply the way that women and naturally and normally are. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Just as women will always impose Female Rule without fail, likewise, everywhere on Earth, it will be the same catastrophic clusterfuck of chaos and drama, which are the handmaidens of the Feminine Spirit.

So women think like women and that happens to be messed up in some ways, but under Patriarchy, men maintained enough control over women to keep women out of power. There was a recognition that women in power would impose female mores and that this would royally screw up everything, which is exactly what it does.

So patriarchy saved men from women’s nonsense and it saved women from themselves because…get this…even women, deep down inside, do not want to live under the constant drama, turmoil, chaos and irrationality of a culture of rules and laws that are based on people’s feelings (Female Rule) instead of logic, reason, and sense (Male Rule).

Even women hate Female Rule or Feminist Rule, but they are too dense to do anything about it.

I think most women just assume we men will at some point say we’ve had enough of the idiocy of Female Rule and simply take back power. Women will scream and yell and carry on like the grown up children they are, but deep down inside, I think most of them will welcome the an order and reason based society instead of one based on the violent mood swings of women.

Yes.

Women secretly want us men to save them from themselves because they know deep down inside that there are a lot of things that are simply better done by a man.

The problem is that under Female Rule you start to get all these rules, laws and mores that have pretty much no definition whatsoever. Or no reasonable definition. Often the definition, if interpreted rationally, makes no sense at all and is simply an insane rule, law, or more.

More and more of society starts being taken over by, “How does it make women feel?” Under Female Rule, if a man makes a woman feel bad, he is arrested or punished outside of the penal system, for instance by firing.

The definitions of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault and Rape if read by the pure intent of their words themselves would outlaw all flirting, dating and probably most sex.

Most flirting would be considered harassment (and it currently is), most dating would be considered sexual assault (this is the current status of dating) and quite a bit of regular sex would go over to rape.

Flirting would be harassment if it made a women feel bad.

Touching would be sexual assault if it made a woman feel bad.

And of course any sex that made a woman feel bad would obviously be rape. Katharine McKinnon, of the most vicious manhaters of the 20th Century, has actually stated that any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to, it’s rape. And she and her lunatic ilk have actually tried to put codes and even laws along more or these lines in effect.

Well, if it’s rape every time she does it but she doesn’t want to, you just made about half of marital sex rape.

La Bas in Mexico, or Notes from the Tijuana Underground

I am wondering if any of you have been to Mexico. I haven’t been there since 1987 when I was in Tijuana, but it was a mess even then. We were in the red light district (Where else would I be?) so it was a rather delightfully degenerate mess with no sexual morals whatsover. However a criminal element goes along with that and some maniac tried to force me to buy an edible cactus from him. He was very menacing and tried to shake me down.

Crime, social disturbance large and small scale, fistfights, car crashes, falling down drunkenness – that’s Mexico for you.

In the late 70’s when we used to go to Baja California on the outskirts of Tijuana there was a vast slum stretching as far as the eye could see, extending down into some ravines and over some ridges. I have no idea what they made those houses out of, but it was not standard building materials. We used to call it “The Cardboard Shacks.”

As a kid, this slum was utterly terrifying to me. I felt my heart sink into my stomach in fear and awe every time we drove by. Never in my life could I imagine a vast slum like this. There was nothing even slightly like this in the US at the time. My eyes were locked to that scene the whole time we drive by there. It was like watching the aftermath of a gruesome car crash.

Later when we were in Ensenada (that was mostly where we went), once you got off the main road, the streets are junk. They’re either potholed or dirt roads or both. And on the wall, everywhere, in these areas, we saw red graffiti with a hammer and sickle and the words, “Revolucion!” Well of course.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You can’t have slums like that anywhere without having its obvious reaction – a socialist or Communist pro-worker or pro-poor movement.

These rightwingers with their End of History crap are self-deluded like all of the blind rich and their water-carriers in academia and journalism. They actually thought that when that Wall fell, the rich would be able to create capitalist paradises all over the world where the rich could live like literal kings where most of the people suffered in slums like “The Cardboard Shacks.”

They wouldn’t have to worry about a thing. No more Communists, socialists, or even social liberals. No more wealth redistribution. No more social programs. No more worries about the poor rising up – they could die in their self-made horrorshow slums while the royal rich ate, drank, and made merry like no tomorrow.

Well, only a few years after the Fall of the Wall, revolutions were still going strong all over the world. The world was mostly ruled by socialist or social democratic parties. Vast maldistributions of wealth still created inevitable Leftist backlashes, just as Marx’s Laws predicted.

Did these rich fools really think they were going to pull this crap off? Sometimes I think rich people are retarded. But they’re not. They’re just blind, live for the day, and are amnesic towards the past like most humans. Idiotic, senseless optimism not grounded in reality seems to be coded into our genes. Presumably this is why our race never simply offed itself as you would thought by now.

I went into a Mexican bar and it was wild and crowded and crazier than any American bar. There were off-duty US servicemen in there, getting shit-faced with everyone else. A gorgeous but very tall woman came up to me and grabbed my cock, just like that! I mean when does that happen? I thought I won the lottery until she whispered in my ear, “High baby…” I jumped backwards. You just can’t hide that male voice.

Earlier we had just made our way to the Red Light District. We weren’t trying to get laid or anything like that. Hell no! What kind of a guy do you think I am? There were men standing in front of every sleazy bar, hawkers. They were all trying to outdo each other in degeneracy.

Six-teen year old girls!”

Fif-teen year old girls!

I forgot if they were offering 14 year olds, not that I cared. I don’t go to foreign countries to fuck JB’s. Clearly an awful lot of grown men like that teen pussy, the illegal kind most of all. Part of it is because it is wrong, illegal, and forbidden – there’s that appeal.

I was buying tacos everywhere we went. I was hungry and they were all damn good!

Against the wall with a crashed-in foregone look on her face that seemed to recede into the wall itself, was an Indian woman. She was actually good looking. She had ~four of her children there. She was a mother and her four kids and there they were on the streets, living like animals. And literally no one gave a damn. I gave her some money and she was very grateful. Ever since then I have wondered what happened to her and her kids. They’ve haunted me ever since.

We went into a seemingly empty bar. There were some men back there running the place, complete pigs like most Mexican men. I’m sure it’s bad for the women, but I can’t deny that piggy societies are awful comfortable and fun for us men. We run the show, no one dares challenge us, there’s not a whole of stuff we can’t get away with if we dare.

There were several women up on tables wearing short dresses. They were dancing in this desperate, sexy way, trying to sell their bods to us. The men were gesturing to these women with looks that said, “Here’s the merchandise, men. Please help yourself to one of these debased whores here.” Snicker. Guffaw. Belly laugh.

But this scene was almost as sad as the homeless woman with her brood. All of the women had the worst sadness smashed into their faces. And there was something else. Abject and utter shame and humiliation.

Now that can be fun as a game to play in bed because a lot of women like their sex really dirty like that. But these women were very unhappy. There were miserable, wretched. That plaintive pain sucked anything sexy out of the scene. Only a sadist would get turned on by that.

We walked out of the bar, shaken. I felt like something had died inside of me. I have never seen a sexual scene as depressing as that in my life.

We wandered the streets and some Mexican guy made friends with us, probably to get some money. He kept asking us for money to go to this or that bar. He was our traveling barker. He was about 20 and certainly pleasant enough.

We ended up in some real Mexican bar full of working class men and women, mostly 18-30. There were a lot of hot women. But this was no pickup bar. All of the women were more or less unfuckable.

I have heard that at least back then (and still today apparently), it was hard to get even young Mexican women to put out. Many guarded their virginity. A lot would only trade their hymens in for a wedding ring. In other cases you might have to date her 3-4 months before you can finally smash.

This was nothing but a dance bar, replete with scores of happy people dancing their lives away, right here amidst the ruins of humanity.

I noticed another thing. There was a sense of anxiety on most their faces, men and women. They weren’t very relaxed or secure. I asked my Mom if poor people tended to feel insecure and she said, “Of course.” Which is something I never thought about: the psychological face of poverty. That was almost a bit haunting too.

We left the bar and I tried to pick up a Mexican woman, age 20. She was cute but rather fat but who cares? I was drunk in a foreign country and I didn’t give a damn anymore. I was using all my famed pickup skills on her, wooing her with my smooth and slick ease, but she wasn’t falling for the bullshit I was selling. In a high-pitched voice she kept protesting my seduction attempt.

“Es una mentira! Es una mentira!”

She was protesting that everything I was saying was a lie. Of course that’s true and that’s always true when I am trying to seduce a woman. Seduction after all is a scam, a fraud, a lie. We are literally trying to trick and fool women into bed past their silly protests.

“Honest seducer” is  an oxymoron. If you can’t lie your fool head off, don’t even bother trying to be a player. Just get a girlfriend or get married and keep your conscience clear. You might even get a lot of sex – who knows? Seduction is a dirty game.

Somehow it was 2 or 3 in the morning. We were out on lost streets to nowhere without a soul in sight at the literal edge of the world in Tijuana, drunkenly careening the streets and  trying  not to fall off the edge.

Most people would advise you to stay out of those places at those hours. It’s generally regarded as a scene that is dangerous as Hell. But hey, I like to live dangerously. Life’s no fun without a bit of risk – even risk of serious injury or death.

Somehow there was a bar tucked out here in  all the nothingness. It gave off seriously sleazy vibes. Out here, far on the outskirts of the Red Light District, is where you find the really dirty bars with the legendary donkey shows and whatnot. Why? Because out here no one cares. Out here the morals are as lost as the streets.

We went inside and the place was packed. We hung out for a while. This seemed like a place where it was anything goes, and abandonment of all propriety felt warm and cozy to me. I was in my element, happy as a clam. We were drinking.

About half an hour in, at 3 in the morning, there’s a woman up on the stage, maybe 35 years old, gorgeous with long dark hair. She’s about as White as I am. She’s completely nude. Her legs are spread as wide as wings.

This was before all the women decided to go bald, so there was a huge triangle of dark brown public hair at her V. Young people nowadays think such decoration on one’s body is gross and disgusting, but the men of our age grew up on hairy pussies, we were weaned on them like our mother’s milk. Most of us probably got imprinted at almost a genetic level, and at least I developed a love for bushes that I carry to this day.

There was a young White man on the stage, completely plastered. He was blond and about 20. He was down on the ground, slinking forwards like a snake. He looked a bit humiliated and embarassed himself,  which made sense as he was making  an abject ass out of himself. But part of his body said he was too wasted to care anymore. Soon he was at that wonderful bush, and he started munching away.

Damn, that’s depraved as Hell! I love it!

The woman had a look of shame, defiance, anger, and arousal all at the same time. Sometimes she smiled. She was happier than the Table Women. Even if this was debasing, she seemed to be getting off on that aspect like so many women do.

We crashed in our car somewhere near the beach, in the land of nowhere. Early in the morning someone knocked on the glass. Two Mexican police officers. We woke up and waved to them.

Unlike American cops, Mexican cops don’t give a damn. About what? About much of anything. This list of things deemed trivial and not worth an arrest is quite long, which is as it should be.

Later that morning we went around to crowded panaderies buying Mexican sweetbreads, which are actually quite nice. They were all packed to the roofs, and the hordes there all had that familiar desperate sort of anxiety I saw at the dance club. Their faces were hard, pained, gritty and desperate. Poverty paints lines on your face, lines of cruelty.

It was time to go home. There was the terrible line at the border. Dirty children in rags with filthy cloths darted about, offering to “clean your windows” for some coins. We mostly blew them off but there was something terrifying about them too. This place, Tijuana, was obviously a place where human souls go to die.

There were others, often dead-poor older women, selling this, that, or whatever. They were a bit pathetic but not as bad as the haunted kids with rags. Most of them had shy, submissive smiles on the faces. Here in this forsaken land at the edge  of the world trying not to fall off, the poor definitely know their place.

Alt Left: A Letter to Francis Fukuyama: There’s No Such Thing as the End of History

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You can’t have slums like I saw  in Tijuana anywhere without having their obvious reaction – a socialist or Communist pro-worker or pro-poor movement.

These rightwingers with their End of History crap are self-deluded like all of the blind rich and their water-carriers in academia and journalism. They actually thought that when that Wall fell, the rich would be able to create capitalist paradises all over the world where the rich could live like literal kings where most of the people suffered in slums like “The Cardboard Shacks.”

They wouldn’t have to worry about a thing. No more Communists, socialists, or even social liberals. No more wealth redistribution. No more social programs. No more worries about the poor rising up – they could die in their self-made horrorshow slums while ate, drank, and partied like royalty.

Well only a few years after the Fall of the Wall, revolutions were still going strong all over the world. The world was mostly ruled by socialist or social democratic parties. Vast maldistributions of wealth still created inevitable Leftist backlashes, just as Marx’s Laws predicted.

Did these rich fools really think they were going to pull this crap off? Sometimes I think rich people are retarded. But they’re not. They’re just blind, live for the day, and are amnesic towards the past like most humans. Idiotic, senseless optimism not grounded in reality seems to be coded into our genes. Presumably this is why our race never simply offed itself as you would thought by now.

The Insanity of the SJW War on Tulsi Gabbard

SJW’s declared war on Tulsi Gabbard because she used to be against political homosexuality. She was raised in a very socially conservative household that had an anti-gay agenda and she made a few public statements here and there that the gays don’t like.

But since then she has done a complete 180 and now earns a 100 score on the gay Humans Rights Campaign’s scorecard.

So why are they mad at her?

She used to be not nice to teh geyz! So what! What she did and said wasn’t even that bad. At that time, lots of people were against gay marriage, like more than half the population. My parents were against it most of their lives. I guess my parents are Nazis!

She was worried about gays brainwashing kids in schools, which is a bit of a reach, but really now: why do we need to have homosexual activists coming into the schools of little children teaching them all about the teh geyz and the trannies and all the rest of the Freakshow?! I mean come on, little children do not need to know about this or be taught about it.

Little kids are not particularly homophobic anyway. Mostly they don’t even know what sex is or even what it means to be a homosexual. I had no idea how humans practiced oral sex when I was 11-13. I had to be told what a blowjob was. I hadn’t a clue.

Yes, boys think it’s bad to be a “queer,” but they don’t even know what that means. They just know it is something you don’t want to be, which is an excellent concept for any straight boy to imbibe. Yes, extremely effeminate little boys are bullied, and rightly so. We had two screaming queens in our 5th grade class. Of course they got bullied. Were they born that way? Did they have some genes that made them act like screaming faggots?

Effeminate boys are bullied and the rest of the boys get the message: “Don’t be effeminate or you get your ass beat!” An excellent message for any straight boy to be taught. Tulsi also got in trouble for calling the gays pushing this stuff “gay activists,” which is exactly what they were and are.

Nowadays these idiots go into schools and teach little children stuff like, “Well, if you are a girl, and you like girls, maybe you are gay. If you are a boy and you like boys, maybe you are gay.” Yeah, way to go idiots. Great message to teach to little children.

Your average little kid only has friends of their own gender. An 11 year old girl much prefers her girlfriends to boys, who are gross. A boy the same age prefers his male friends to yucky girls who have cooties. So all these little 11 year old children are getting the message that they must be homosexuals. Way to go gays! Or maybe that’s the idea? Recruitment anyone?

Anyway, Tulsi was raised in a fundamentalist Christian upbringing that was very anti-gay. She imbibed some of that. Her parents were active politically and teh geyz declared war on them. As an impressionable young woman aged 20, she made media appearances defending her parents from these pests. As any young woman that age might well do.

Anyway, she has completely come around and she supports the whole Gay Agenda Package whole cloth. There’s not one i or t she doesn’t dot or cross. But that’s not good enough. Apparently her mind is not pure yet.

Teh geyz have discovered that evil Tulsi is a thought criminal! Oh noes! SJW’s put thought criminals in prison for life, literally. Why? Because Tulsi averred privately that her views about geyz had not changed, even though she supported them 100% politically in overt speech and behavior. But that’s not ok. Because thoughts have to be pure. And Tulsi is still guilty of harboring illegal thoughts. Which means she’s a raging Nazi.

Look. I don’t care what you think. You can think whatever the heck you want to! You can have any opinion you want. I don’t even care if you like me or not. Just pretend to like me and we’re all good. As soon as you walk out my door, you can curse me as a scumbag, but I won’t care if I don’t hear it. If you are good to me, I don’t care about how you feel about me deep down inside.

I don’t care how you think of feel about anything deep down inside. Your thoughts are your private abode. You can run amok in there or do whatever in tarnation you want to, and as long as you don’t tell anyone, it’s all legal.

So now people not only have to be perfectly pure SJW virgins for life, pure as driven snow or the Ivory Soap girl, never having committed even a single SJW transgressions in word or deed, as there is no forgiveness or redemption in the world of Calvinist SJW’s.

That’s worse than Communists. With the Communists, confess your sins, get re-educated, get with the program, and you’re all good. Communists don’t care what you used to think. It’s about as important as what you used to look like, and believe me, no one cares what you used to look like. And everyone else ought to feel the same way that they do.

What do I want to know about some person? These things: How does this person speak and act now? Are they still racist, homophobic, bla bla (insert postmodern cardinal sin)? Nope? Well then who cares what they used to say or do or especially think? It’s literally not important.

It’s alarming the way these freaks are condemning people for life. Even Dante let you work it off in Purgatory. These SJW’s are worse than the sternest moral prigs. They’re worse than Dante. And he terrified his neighbors even all the way back in the 1400’s.

Alt Left: Venezuela: What Capital Flight and Capital Strikes Look Like

Let’s suppose that half the employers in the US simply closed up their shops and shipped all their money overseas to sit in investments. They had plenty enough money to live off of anyway. If you asked them what they were doing, they would tell you that they are refusing to invest in the California economy because they hate the liberal California government.

Well, in a nutshell, that’s part of what happened in Venezuela. A country cannot just sit there while everyone with any money at all ships it out of the country instead of investing it in their homeland. Obviously that’s not going to work. So Chavez put in capital controls to try to stem the capital flight.

It worked but then it created a whole host of other problems. And even with the laws against it, Venezuela has continued to see $50 billion/year flow right out of the economy, generally right to Houston or Miami.

In recent months, all capital controls were eliminated and the exchange rate was finally allowed to float after all this time. Inflation collapsed but so did the economy and it was already racing downhill anyway.

How do you cure runaway inflation? Real easy. You reduce demand. How to you do that? You make it so wages are so low and goods so high that hardly anyone is buying anything anymore. Since inflation runs on supply and demand as its cause and effect, generally you reduce demand and prices tend to drop. You increase demand and they tend to go up. It’s Economics 101.

Nice little doomsday comment here from one of our commenters:

Francis Meville: Anyway, the US are heading towards another worse Vietnam. Venezuela will turn socialist as they can no longer afford to live in a liberal economy. What Venezuela is experiencing right now is not socialism but mass lay off by capital, like half the Californian population living on the streets because the cost of living is way too high.

And most American media tell the yokels all that happens because California is run by the radical Left just one notch below Venezuela as a harbinger of the plagues to befall everybody if were don’t vote more and more reactionary politicians with the decades passing.

You know that California has nothing socialist, so what is happening in Venezuela has as little relationship with the evil they pretend.

This time Trump has committed some kind of hubris America will never recover from. Trump imagines he can arrive in Caracas aboard an aircraft carrier and by helicopter to proclaim like an angel Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela and then depart at the head of a ticker-tape parade of triumph.

It is disappointing relatively to the slowdown or cessation of projects that government had instituted for its people mostly due to high-tech American hybrid wars techniques, but it is not a catastrophe.

Maduro is not the economic genius it would have taken in face of such a foe, but he is being pushed back down to his own level of top competence as per Peter’s principle: class war and union action, where he could tower even over Uncle Ho. Good night America!

Alt Left: The Cause of Venezuela’s Economic Crisis (Socialism Had Nothing to Do with It)

Sure, socialism has nothing to do with Venezuela’s problems. First of all, there is no socialism in Venezuela. There’s just Keynesian economics as the state imposes controls on a capitalist economy. Keynesianism works great everywhere.

The government hardly owns anything but the commanding heights anyway. The state controls oil, gas, minerals, electric grid, telecom, hydropower, and cement and steel manufacture. This is completely normal all over the world in many social democracies. Even in the US, the state owns some of these things. The state owning this stuff causes zero problems anywhere.

And the state controlled all of this under Chavez when the economy boomed. State control has actually gone down under Maduro, as he privatized a lot of stuff and did other rightwing things.

Compared to Chavez, Maduro has gone way to the right on economics. These guys like to play cause and effect. So I guess rightwing economics crashed the economy!

100% of the problems are due to sabotage by the capitalist sector which controls the entire productive economy. The Allende “make the economy scream” playbook has been followed almost to the letter along with the same insane propaganda blitz by the CIA that Allende was subjected to. This is just the Chilean Coup 2.0!

But the problems are all due to capitalist sabotage (mostly capital flight). The capital flight and coup attempts set in motion a chain of events that led to Keynesian economic controls like price and currency controls, which led to their own problems.

The currency controls created a currency black market, which is really the source of all the inflation. Maduro did not deal with this properly but his response was a fixed currency rate, neither right nor left economics. For instance, Ron Paul wants a fixed currency rate.

Price controls were evaded. State made up for the capitalists refusing to produce price controlled products by importing them. Oil prices crashed and they could not import stuff anymore, so shortages developed.

Obviously shortages are not possible in any capitalist economy, so all the shortages were artificially created by the capitalists, who stopped production, hoarded goods, diverted to the black market, and smuggled to Colombia to take advantage of inflation by creating more of it!

Most production and goods import goes straight to the black market or to Colombia which then causes shortages for some goods. The lines you see are for cheap state subsidized food. The shelves in most markets are full. Check the videos. No one is starving. Malnutrition is low.

The media is lying to you.

Alt Left: Joe Biden and the Wuss Left

The Sissy Left leftwing radio station I listed to has some “male” announcer who was talking about problems with Biden’s candidacy with some other leftwing wuss. “Yes we are hearing a lot of things about Joe Biden now. It’s not looking good. He touches women!” That was the first I heard of this stupid BS. And I thought WTF. Listen to what this leftwing girly station just said! They said Biden is having a real big problem with his candidacy because he touches women!

That’s literally what they said. Who cares what they meant? What’s the message that’s getting sent? It’s the simple age old feminist message that touching women is wrong and evil. Not only that but mainstream feminism has always held that touching women (ie sexual harassment) is a form of aggression and violence!

Joe Biden puts his hands on your shoulders, and that’s violence! Damn! Did she have to go to the emergency room? I sure hope she didn’t get hurt too bad! Can you imagine that? Putting your hands on a woman’s shoulders? What an evil misogynistic psycho! That’s almost as bad as Ted Bundy!

Think about it again. What’s the message?

Touching women is evil. Men who touch women are evil sexist misogynist abusers who must be fired from their jobs and have their careers destroyed.

You think that sounds nuts? It is, but that is exactly what they said, right? And that’s been the message of #metoo all along. Touching women is evil. Kissing women is rape. Making a pass at a woman is assault. Asking a woman for her phone number is sexual misconduct.

Solution? Easy. Quit touching women. Quit kissing women. Quit making those evil passes at women. Quit abusing them by asking them for their numbers, for Chrissake! That’s so gross and creepy!

I am proud to say that the Alt Left is one of the only political movements to take a stand against this folly. Both political parties are completely cucked. The men are all sissies and the women are all feminist harridans. We on the Alt Left are absolutely, resolutely pro-sex!

When both the Left and the Right have taken up sissiness and Puritanism, we are the movement for real men and real women, for free love, for doing it in the streets! We are the movement against all forms of Puritanism, Victorianism, censoriousness, Comstockery, sex-hatred, repression, and priggishness.

The Alt Left supports men touching women! Hell yeah! Do it all you want or can get away with lol. The Alt Left supports men kissing women! We love that. Do it all the time if you can get away with it.

We support asking women on dates and for their numbers! Go for it! Don’t be a pussy. Ask them out, boys! We support making passes and sexual advances, both wanted and unwanted. Go for it! Flirt away!

The Alt Left is the movement that values heterosexual flirting above most other things in life. If she doesn’t like it or tells you to stop, you need to stop now or soon. As long as you do that, there’s no such thing as sexual harassment, and #metoo doesn’t exist.

There’s nothing wrong with making women uncomfortable! The Alt Left fully supports the right of men to make women uncomfortable, and the other way around for that matter! You are going to make people uncomfortable in life. It can’t be avoided.

Love sex and getting tired of all this petty, bitchy, girly, fussy, sexually uptight repressive Victorian bullshit? Tired of both the Sex-Hating Left and the Sex-Hating Right? Join the Alt Left! The only pro-sex movement remaining on the Left.

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Alt Left: Why the Alt Left Exists

This is why there is an Alt Left. Click to enlarge.

This is why there even is such a thing as the Alt Left, in case you were wondering. Because in a sense we are opposed to all the nonsense and weirdness you see in this photo.

Granted there have always been people who were strange in terms of sexual gender, orientation, proclivity, or other ways. There have always been all sorts of sexual deviants and sexual perverts. Humans are very weird sexually, so it’s to be expected that there are going to be a lot of people who are sexually weird, perverted, or deviant.

I’m not opposed to that. I’m a bit of a pervert myself as a matter of fact. If there are a thousand perversions, I’d probably try 999 of them just to be an asshole and give the finger to everyone on Earth, especially uptight Puritanical society (feminists, I’m looking at you!).

But I wouldn’t get hooked on any of them because I am not a sex pervert. But a lot of people are. They get wired up that way in childhood and adolescence, and in general it’s not fixable. In most cases, perversions are no big deal.

There have always been non-heteroseuxals, small numbers of effeminate homosexual men and masculine lesbian women. It’s not normal but most can’t help it, and they probably got wired up that way. It’s ok for ~3% of the population to be gay or strange in this way.

But most importantly, homosexuality is not normal. Effeminate men who only want sex with men and disdain sex with women are strange. It’s not normal. Men are supposed to be masculine and desire to have sex with women while disdaining sex for their own kind. Women are supposed to be feminine and want sex with men and disdain exclusive or predominant sex with women.

I’m not against women being bisexual. I talk to bisexual women all the time, and I’ve even dated a couple. I just think they should like cock too and preferably prefer cock to pussy. Because once you start getting large numbers of women who prefer other women to men sexually, Houston, you’ve got a problem.

There have always been odd men who dressed up like women. Mostly they were homosexuals. They have always been strange perverted men who dress up like women as a sex perversion. But they mostly kept it to themselves.

There have always been butch lesbians who look and act very much like men.

But in general, none of these folks ever insisted that they were the opposite sex. It’s ok for men to be feminine or even effeminate. They’re still men for God’s sake. I don’t want it to become common, but there have always been these men. It’s ok for women to be masculine to very masculine. Of course they’re still women, anyone knows that.

Transsexualism is bizarre. Mostly there are no such thing as transsexuals. They’re all just mentally ill. Now I’d be the last one to want to discriminate against the mentally ill. I work with crazy people all the time. I’m even a bit nuts myself. 50% of the population has a disordered personality in the sense that they have traits of personality disorders. So having personality disorder traits is basically normal in humans.

We all have symptoms of mental illness at one time or another. Few of us will make it to the end without breaking mentally in one way or another, typically a mood disorder like Depression or some Anxiety Disorder. If you can make it to old age before you have your first breakdown, I’d say you are doing well.

That’s ok, but people should try to get as sane as they can. In spite of that, a lot of people are mentally disordered in some way or other even with the pills and therapy and whatnot. It’s ok if you can control your symptoms and try to behave as normal and non-disordered as possible.

I’m against discriminating against people with mental disorders. Most can work at jobs just fine. I’m against people harming people with mental disorders in any way. I’d have to support harming myself for Chrissake.

The Left in general was or should have been in favor of full rights for all these folks, the non-heterosexuals, the effeminate men and masculine women, and all of the sexually perverted as long as they don’t hurt others.

But in the past most of this was under wraps. Sure the guy next to you at the office seemed totally normal until one day you found out from his wife what he was really like in bed. He was weird as Hell. In the past, you said, “I don’t want to hear about it,” and moved on. Everyone else said the same thing. What happened in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

But now the weirdos, the freaks, the strange, the odd, the bizarre, the mentally ill, the perverted, and the sexually deviant are parading their oddness for all to see instead of keeping it behind closed doors or in their damned bedroom where it belongs.

The Left has become the champion of all of this bizarreness and abnormality to the point where it seems like they have declared war on the normal, the non-deviant, and the non-disordered. We are all supposed to be strange in some sexual or gender way now. It’s almost bad or uncool to be normal. Tens of millions of people are under vast pressure to quit acting normal and start acting weird and deviant.

Further, there’s nothing remaining of the Left. The Left stands for the Cultural Left Freakshow of oddness, weirdness, strangeness, craziness, deviancy, perversion and all manner of oddity against people who simply behave normally because normal is uncool now. And it doesn’t really stand for anything else. This is the Modern Left. That’s all there is. There’s nothing else. It’s nothing but a carnival freakshow.

Furthermore, why must the Left champion these odd folks with the wink that in order to be hip, we all need to act this way?

Who cares about these odd people? Why are they so damned important? Why are they more important, than you, me and all the rest of the regular folks? Yes, they deserve full rights, of course they do, especially if they keep their blatant oddness, like men wearing women’s clothes, behind closed doors where it belongs.

Of course non-heterosexuals deserve full rights, but why the obsession with 2% of the population that are homosexuals? How about if we talk about them 2% of the time (all they deserve) instead of 50% of the time? Heterosexuals are a good 92% of men, and most bisexual men lean straight. 93% of men are not gay or bisexual. 98% of women are not lesbians. 85% are heterosexual and most bisexual women lean straight. 93% of women are straight or lean straight.

Why don’t we talk about straight people? About masculine men and feminine women? About women who love men and men who love women? About people who don’t wear their sexual perversions on their labels with a button?

Is this the most important project of the Left? Champion the odd and unusual and disdaining the normal and typical? Do we need to talk about all this strangeness all the time?

Can we stop disdaining regular non-deviant folks for a minute? Can we maybe say it’s ok to be normal, to be a regular guy or a regular girl, to be a manly man or a girly girl?

Can we stop showering hate on masculinity except in the case of lesbians? Can we quit screaming at men to stop being masculine?

Can we please stop shaming and condemning women who desire to be feminine (talking to you, feminists), which is after all the normal and natural way for all human females? Can we stop praising women and girls who dress and act exactly like boys and men as the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Can we quit acting so Goddamned weird and maybe act normal for a change instead?

This is why there is an Alt Left, in case you were wondering. A lot of us have had it up to here with the celebration of weirdness, deviancy, perversion and mental illness on the Left. A lot of us think it’s ok to be regular guys and regular girls. A lot of us don’t understand why the Left can be the same way.

Alt Left: The Problem with the Cultural Left: A Focus on Form Instead of Content

From a conversation on the web:

Anonymous commenter: Some of the Left has gone from fighting for real, important issues to fighting for Political Correctness and other absurdities. That’s not all the Left, just the most vocal and strident. I am what people would consider a Leftist (even though my worldview is Indigenous), and I couldn’t care less what someone says. I care about what someone does.

Even AIM (the American Indian Movement) has gone from fighting for tribal sovereignty and against the destruction of tribal lands by industries and corporations, which is still going on, to fighting against Indian mascots! Many people are fixated on words and disregarding actual facts, probably because screaming about words is easier than facing the monster of destruction this global civilization has become.

What you call the Cultural Left is more interested in form than in content…it is more interested in style than substance.

To which I reply:

Getting all upset about someone saying some word that everyone says anyway is ridiculous.

Also the Cultural Left seems to me to have become prudish, Puritanical, Victorian and even sex-hating. They are also uptight, priggish party-poopers. They’re the no-fun crowd, people who see a party and rush in and dump turds in the punch bowl.

These types used to be rightwingers or conservatives, and in this sense the Cultural Left are actually quite conservative or even reactionary and backwards.

Let’s focus on real issues, not some BS about what someone said, especially when they didn’t even say anything bad anyway.

Let’s focus on real job discrimination and especially housing discrimination against Blacks.

Let’s focus on abortion rights being taken away from women.

Let’s focus on ending employment discrimination against gays.

Let’s focus on getting rid of all discrimination against transsexuals.

You know, the real stuff, not the bullshit.

Alt Left: Hey Feminists: Men Don’t Actually Hate Women

It is a feminist article of faith that all or most all men hate women. This statement is repeated endlessly and has been stated over and over by all of their biggest heroes and scholars. On feminist sites, the notion that most all men hate women is repeated ad nauseum on a daily basis.

I always found this view odd because I know men pretty well. And over six decades, I have not commonly met men who objectively hate women.

On the other hand, I have met many sexist females who think that men are quite inferior to women. In fact, this is exactly what almost all feminists believe. Feminism is simply female sexism against men. They’re female chauvinist pigs, they’ve been this way from the start, and they’re this way to this very day. I don’t think they’ll ever change because the very notion of feminism is predicated on notions like all men hating women and men being quite inferior to women.

If we men really hated women, you would hear it all the time. I would have been hearing it my whole life. I know this because men don’t hide things like this. If men hate hate something or someone or some group, they just come right out and say it. Men are not embarrassed or ashamed to admit that they hate this or that person(s) or thing(s).

In fact, hating is a very masculine behavior and it is quite encouraged in male society, provided you hate the right things. Men who are incapable of hate are regarded as wimps and pussies who will not stand up and fight for themselves. Cowards, in other words. We think they are pathetic.

Most men absolutely do not hate women. I should know. I’m a man. Now whether we treat them as we should is another matter.

Of course, there are men who hate women, and I have met some of them. It’s not cool in male society to say you hate women. People will call you gay if you do that. In other words, straight men are supposed to love women. If you hate them instead, this means you must be homosexual.

What you do hear is men saying they are done with women, they are over them, women are too much trouble, etc. But that’s not hate. And most of them are not serious because you meet the same guy later on and he’s dating or he’s got a girlfriend or wife. And many women say the same thing about men. You often hear this from members of both sexes after the age of 40. You don’t hear it much before that.

What many men are though is sexist. Sexism is not hate. It’s completely different.

It’s this idea that women are a somewhat inferior form of human. They’re not really on our level. Sure, you love them, but they’re just not on the same level as we are. Sort of like how we feel about kids and our pets. Your cat and your young child are in a sense below you, right? They’re just not on the same level. And in a lot of ways, they your cat and your kid are inferior, at least at the moment. But that’s not hate.

All of these feminist women who insist that men hate women are completely out of their minds. It’s been a mass delusion of feminists ever since day one that men hate women. Feminists want to believe this. They want to believe that we hate them because it’s necessary for their crazy, victim-addicted point of view. It’s the biggest lie of them all.

Another big fat lie is Patriarchy. Yes, men have lorded it over women and kept them down for thousands of years, and even for most of American history. But that’s lifting now. Feminism has succeeded in more or less dismantling patriarchy in the US, and they have instead assembled a Matriarchy in its place which of course oppresses men.

There are still some of the remains of the fortress of Patriarchy left, but a lot of the fortifications have been destroyed by the feminists, to their credit. Get off the paranoid “Patriarchy is out to get you” trip, women! It’s crazy nonsense.

These are just two of the insane lies that feminism peddles. Go study feminism sometime. It’s constructed on a house of cards made up of mostly flat out, straight up lies. Feminists are hostile to science, truth, and facts because it doesn’t back up their stupid lies that they have constructed their entire ideology on.

Say no to feminism. If you’re a woman and you love men, it’s time to stand up and say no to feminism.

Alt Left: Letter to a Boy, 2019

Growing up a boy in the 21st century is not easy. The unhinged ideology of feminism has stifled many aspects about the very nature and essence of being a boy, and it is not right.

– You will be told nothing good about your gender because apparently there is no pride in being a boy.

– In society you will experience a system that is tilted against you by branding you a young offender just for typical male behavior.

– Your female peers will be encouraged in every stage of their educational journey and you will not.

– You will be blamed for the oppression of women by just being alive because it contributes to the «upholding of the patriarchy».

– You will be told in university that you’re a rapist in waiting, and you will be forced to attend consent classes.

– Your natural love and affection for women will be described as something awful, making you afraid to even say hello to a woman. One inappropriate remark or a single accusation of making one can destroy your reputation forever.

– If you try to speak out against these injustices, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics.

But despite all of this, young man, I am not worried for you. Because you are a male. We males have overcome impossible obstacles before, and I trust we will again.

But until that day comes young man, you’ll have to live through all of this. And for that, I am sorry.

Alt Left: An Argument for the Utility of a Four Year College Degree, in Anything, Yes, Anything at All

I would like to make an argument for the utility of a four year college degree in absolutely anything at all with possibly a few lightweight exceptions.

Here it is:

I majored in General Ed in junior college. I have a Masters Degree and a genius level IQ (over 140). 😉

Most of the work coming out of Studies departments nowadays is quite poor. Sociology, Anthropology, and Pedagogy are badly corrupted by PC. My own field, Linguistics, is a PC hellhole. Even Psychology is becoming badly corrupted.

You would be surprised that Criminal Justice is actually a very liberal field of study. Generally considered part of Sociology. All of the social sciences are very leftwing, History included. Also a notorious black hole of theory, as no one really knows what causes crime or makes it go up or down.

I suppose you do need to write well even in a Studies field. I have met some people with “Studies” majors, one a feminist with a Gender Studies degree. They were often very intelligent. Not sure what good the degree is.

You know, 30-40 years ago, many entry level jobs said “a Bachelors degree in anything.” This was intelligent as these folks felt that getting a BA in most things is not easy at all, and the person probably has at least a 105 and probably a 115 IQ. They probably don’t have a 100 IQ.

On top of that, the BA should have at least taught them the critical thinking so necessary in the workplace. I still believe that a degree in anything shows that this person has been taught the critical thinking skills necessary for higher level work in our society. So those junk degrees are at least valuable in that sense.

Alt Left: About Those “Worthless Social Science Degrees”

The argument that social science degrees are absolutely worthless for getting a job in modern society has been coming up for decades, but it has grown louder in the last ten years.

Supposedly these degrees are absolutely useless in terms of finding a job, so they are a  waste of money. Further, they are a waste of society’s money.

This argument mostly comes from conservatives, but some liberals have taken it up too. I’d like to point out that the roots of this argument lie in laissez faire free market neoliberal capitalism. So all of you making this argument are in bed with Milton Friedman. I hope you’re happy.

This is so because the only degrees that are said to be worthwhile are those degrees that are useful in a sociopathic hyper-individualistic anything goes free market economy such as we are blighted with here in the US.

The only degrees that are worthwhile are those that will get Bill Gates,  Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, Howard Schmidt, Jeffrey Epstein, Steve Jobs,  or other semi-sociopathic heartless maniac billionaires to hire you for whatever capitalist scam they are cooking up at the moment.

And everything else, everything that doesn’t allow you to be a cog in a lying, cheating, thieving corporate world, is completely and utterly useless. Because the Market is everything and everything is the Market.

In such a society it should not be surprising that conservatives, mostly conservative males, say that anything other than a math, science, tech, business or management degree is utterly worthless.

Japan is thinking of phasing out all of its social sciences in the next decade or two. There have been many calls to reduce or eliminate social science programs at US universities. These calls go right along with the total commodification of life that we are experiencing.

Furthermore, they display a contempt for knowledge and the scholarship needed to obtain it as a core value of human existence. Why are we here anyway? How about to learn? That would be one of my arguments. Not that most folks have any use for much learning, but the species as a whole does. It’s a value. No you can’t slap a dollar sticker on it and it often has little or no monetary value.  In modern society that means it is utterly worthless. Why? Because it doesn’t make a buck.

Alt Left: Modern Life and the Commodification of Just About Everything

There’s a lot of talk about the commodification of daily life lately as we become increasingly atomized and, yes, commodified.

Now our cars, our bodies, our homes and apartments, and not just our time and skills, are commodified. We are all supposedly to commodify every aspect of our existence that will allow us to get hired by some 1 percenter as some glorified servant. Rent your ass and everything you own to some rich man. That’s the mantra. Check out Thomas Friedman for his suggestions on how to whore out everything you own in order to keep a roof over your head and stomach filled.

Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and other atrocities are perfect of examples of the commodification of our lives in which our cars and even homes become commodities to be whored out to whomever so we can survive.

Rock and roll? Just another commodity. They play rock songs at Republican Conventions for God’s sake. Revolution? An ad campaign can blazen the word revolution across ads for all sorts of things with the result being millions in profits. Woodstock? Commodity. Hippies? Commodity. Punks? Another commodity,  nothing but a hair style. Piercings? Commodity? Tattoos, the original form of ultimate rebellion? Commodity.

All of these things once had a deep meaning which went quite a ways against the corporate capitalist consumption as a way of life culture. In fact, most of these things were rebellions against that sort of sleaze, a giant middle finger and that cheapening of all life other than a dollar bill.

Now they all have no meaning other than money objects for some capitalist to make money off of. All of their rebellion and the brilliant and even revolutionary critiques they had of society have been sucked out of them. Any of those things might as well be another product in a bin at Walmart.

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

Alt Left: Do Not Eat Processed Meats with Nitrates or Nitrates

I am just learning this right now. The nitrates are added to processed meats such as luncheon meats, bacon, ham, sausages, pepperoni, etc. to help preserve them and to give them the pink color. Most meat that has that pink color is probably bad for you.

The nitrates and nitrites themselves are not harmful. Many vegetables have them. However, when added to meats, especially red meats, the nitrates interact with chemicals in the meat to produce nitrosamines, which are not only bad for your heart but are also a strong carcinogen.

We’ve known this for a long time now. There was a big warning leveled against these meats in the mid-1970’s.

Back then the FDA was pro-consumer, unlike now when it is viciously anti-consumer, pro-business, and anti-public health. The FDA gave the meat industry three months to prove that nitrates in meat were harmless. They couldn’t do it. Instead they made up a lie that nitrates were required to keep botulism out of food.

But meats cured without nitrates have been used for decades and there hasn’t been one case of botulism. Most botulism comes from canned foods, often canned vegetables. The can is often very old and many times the botulism causes a bulge in the can. Never eat out of any can that has developed an odd bulge in it.

In 1980, Republicans came in and a consumer and public health-hostile and pro-business FDA came in and the nitrate controversy went away. It awakened again a few years ago when British papers published studies showing that processed meats with nitrates caused thousands of cases of cancer per year in the UK. This was called the bacon scare.

The industry has been lying shamelessly about these carcinogens in our foods for almost fifty years now. Their line came right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook.

There are many websites on the Net with articles about the fake nitrate scare and even how nitrates are good for you. I just realized that I bought a package of turkey hot dogs and one of ground turkey meat that both had sodium nitrite in it.

There’s really no safe amount of this stuff you can eat. Even eating one nitrate hot dog a day significantly increases your risk of dying of cancer, typically colon cancer. If you know what’s good for you, you will quit eating this junk right now.

There are not a lot of nitrate-free processed meats out there, but there are some. There are completely safe traditional ways to cure meats that work just as well as nitrates. But the curing process can take up to 18 months. Meat companies want their meats to cure rapidly. Waiting around for them to cure cuts into profits.

So we see once again how the maximize profits directive of capitalism once again puts money and profits over human lives. Capitalism literally murders or kills humans just so other humans can make a buck. I hope you fanboys are proud of that fancy free market of yours.

Alt Left: Banned Twice from Twitter for Tweeting the Word “Whore”

In Venezuela, two opposition politicians went off to a hotel room with two women late at night. They were later hospitalized with drug overdoses. One man died. The two women were prostitutes. All early reports on the case said that the rightwingers were partying with whores and they did too much dope. People were laughing about it.

But that’s not what happened. They indeed bought two whores, but the whores doped them with scopalamine, a drug that Colombian criminals use to render people unconscious so they can rob them. The drug can kill and it killed one man and seriously injured another to the extent that he nearly died.

I started correcting people who were laughing and saying these guys were partying with women and suffered as a result.

I tweeted that the two women were whores, murderous poisoning whores at that, and that they had poisoned two men, murdering one and severely injuring another. I Tweeted this a number of times to point out that these guys were not just partying with some party girls but instead that they had been out and out murdered by two thieving murdering prostitutes.

The result?

I got banned for hate speech twice! For using the word whores to describe two thieving, murdering, scum of the earth, better off dead prostitute pieces of human garbage.

For calling two murdering psychopaths whores. Which is exactly what they were. Prostitutes are in fact whores. That is exactly what they are. Every single prostitute on this planet is nothing but a goddamned whore.

Now if they got trafficked or forced into it, I withdraw my condemnation, but if they do it of their own free will, they will get zero respect from me or any other real man out there.

Because ladies, men, I mean real men, not leftwing soyboys and cucks, do not respect prostitutes at all. They’re nothing but whores to us whether we use them or not, and a lot of us have little-disguised contempt for them, which they richly deserve.

If they want us to respect them, why don’t they quit whoring out their damned bodies? A lot of us, or me anyway, will forgive them.

Except that women who get into that line of work are usually frankly no good. Fully 45% of female prostitutes are diagnosed female psychopaths, which proves that we are correct to disrespect them because prostitutes are generally among the worst women on Earth.

They lie, cheat, and steal. They rob. And not uncommonly, as seen above, they kill, often with a male accomplice. A prostitute is as bad as a woman gets. That’s literally the floor of female morality.

So even a reformed prostitute is suspect because prostitutes regard almost all of us men as walking wallets to be milked dry of all of our possessions, and I doubt if that attitude leaves all of them when they get out of the biz.

Let a prostitute move in with you and she will probably steal from you. That’s what they do. She will spend all the money in your wallet. If she gets a hold of your bank account, she will drain it dry. If she can nab any of your credit cards, she will run them up to the limit.

And then, drained dry, she will leave you to move on to her next victim like a human black widow spider, which is pretty much what most female prostitutes are in a nutshell.

Not all prostitutes are awful human beings. Some women get off dope and out of the biz, reform, and become activists. From what I have seen of them, they are decent people.

But I am willing to bet that when they were caught up in that drug addict prostitute lifestyle (or deathstyle) they were probably pretty lousy people. Because drug addict prostitutes of either sex tend to be crappy human beings. If you don’t believe me, go make friends with a few of them and get back to me. I’ve actually known women like this. Okay? I know what they’re like.

Some women are forced and trafficked into prostitution, and they are literally innocent. My condemnations in this post do not apply to them.

And I would like to point out one more thing. Probably no group of women hate men as much as prostitutes. Even or especially former prostitutes are notorious for being some of the worst man-haters of them all. Many, many radical feminists, the most psycho manhating feminist bitches of all, are former prostitutes. Sometimes I wonder if it’s a requirement.

Many prostitutes are actually lesbians, not because they were born that way but because they despise us men so much that they actually went gay as a result. And yes, women do that. Don’t buy the “born that way” lie of Gay Politics. Not all “gay” humans were born that way. Most were, but not all.

I suppose that, like the playboys and womanizers, they know us men too well. Familiarity leads to contempt and playboys and prostitutes have seen too much of the opposite sex for their own good. They’ve both seen the most horrific behavior of the opposite sex, in spades, often over decades.

Both prostitutes and playboys understand what the opposite sex is really like, not just the good but all of the bad, and both sexes have a bad side that would frighten the Devil Himself.

But really now? Whore is illegal? I mean using it to describe women in general is ugly, I agree. It’s misogynistic, and we men should not be woman-haters just as you women should not be man-haters.

Using it to describe promiscuous women is up in the air. Many if not most men use the word that way anyway, and women actually use that word far more than we do. They are always slut-shaming each other and calling each other whores. They call each other whores far more than we do. But enough about that.

What about using the word whore to describe, you know, a prostitute? Generally a female prostitute but not necessarily, as there are male prostitutes who deserve to be called whores too, and they’re just as awful humans as the female variety if not worse because of all the testosterone-fueled aggression and violence in the male variety.

Their relationships tend to be with older men who their drain of all of their savings before moving on to the next victim. You know, kind of like the female kind?

Look up the word whore in the dictionary. It will say that the word whore means prostitute, especially female prostitute. That’s literally the goddamned definition of the word.

Even if you think it’s mean to call lowly female prostitutes by such a low name as whore, how about using the word for thieving, murdering psychopathic prostitutes? Are they a protected class now too?

I can’t believe I just got banned two times by these pussy numales at Twitter for calling thieving, murderous prostitute psychopaths whores. I’m literally incredulous at this.

I told an idiot SJW friend of mine, and this guy actually told me that whore is not a word he uses. What? Everybody uses that word. Who doesn’t use it? And what sort of a “man” will not deign to use the word whore so as to not injure precious female sensibilities. Not much of a man, I would say. Certainly not a real man, that’s for sure.

Alt Left: Another Word for “Dating” Is “Sexual Assault”

The problem with sexual assault laws is that sexual assault and dating are pretty much the same thing, just as flirting and sexual harassment are basically the same thing and sex with affirmative consent is often rape.

Therefore this idiot Puritanical, Victorian #metoo movement has just effectively outlawed flirting, dating, and a lot of sex right off the bat. Well for straight men anyway. Straight women, lesbians, and gay men can go ahead and do all that stuff and nothing ever happens to them because the #metoo BS was always intended by the dykes and manhaters who created it to constrain, reduce, and ideally eliminate heterosexual sex altogether.

What is the enemy of the feminist movement? Heterosexual men. Women get maximal freedom and never get called on anything while heterosexual men have maximum restriction (as Roissy has correctly noted) and have to live in terror of being brought up on “sexual misconduct” (What is that anyway? It sounds like something the former USSR would invent. Does it even have a definition?) charges by a feminist kangaroo court and hanging jury.

A friend was telling me about how some chick rubbed up against him absolutely on purpose in a deliberate and sexual way in a bar. And it went on for about a minute too. He didn’t react to it in any way. He just let her do it with no reaction on his part other than passivity. I responded that if a woman does that to you, just grab her and start kissing her, just like that. He was alarmed and said, “That’s sexual assault, dude.”

I laughed in his face and called him a cuck and a pussy. I guess I’ve been “sexually assaulting” women my whole life then. Another word for “dating” is “sexual assault.” If you do not “sexually assault” females you date, you will die a virgin. I am serious.

Go in for the kiss. If she backs off, pushes you away, protests, or turns her cheek, then stop. If you keep doing it when she’s protesting or pushing you away, it’s getting rapey and moving into “sexual assault” territory, plus it’s rude and a dick move in general.

Pay no attention to this ridiculous #metoo “affirmative consent” folly about asking permission (“Mother, may I?”) every time you do something physical with a female. Nothing dries up a vagina faster than that. That’s pathetic.

Don’t ever ask permission to do anything physical with a female (with a few exceptions). Just start touching her body with yours physically, see how she reacts, escalate or de-escalate based on her reaction, and go from there.

95% of the time when I did what is described above (that feminists and cucks call sexual assault), the females just totally went for it, and then whatever happened, happened. I always got at least a hot makeout session.

If you do it sanely like a normal, decent person and man, you will never get the cops called on you, and you will never be arrested for sexual assault. Neither ever happened to me and I’ve done the unsolicited physical moves above with literally hundreds of females from age 14 to 59 over a period of 45 years.

Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Alt Left: SJW’s Have Declared War on Normal People and Normal Behavior

Jason:

The whole “macho thing” depends on the occupation. @Robert Lindsay might disagree – but there’s a world of difference from James Taylor singing “Shower Me People” to an auto mechanic crying. One is permissible, the other isn’t.

Anyway, obviously, being sensitive doesn’t work in the teaching, correctional jobs, construction, auto repair – a host of other occupations.

Well, the thing is that apparently I am not macho at all, but I can fake it enough that I have worked in extremely macho workplaces, and those men all pretty much accepted me. You just look at how the other guys act and talk and try to imitate them. If you already have some masculine core from your youth, you can plug into it. It’s not that hard, guys.

Of course women pretty much didn’t accept me because women are far more demanding than men when it comes to masculinity. Toxic masculinity is 100% women’s fault. Men display toxic masculinity because women demand it and won’t accept anything even 1% less. As long as women demand it, men will do it.

At those workplaces, you talk the talk and walk the walk, and everyone will be ok with you. And go along with the general vibes. At this security guard job I had where the atmosphere was extremely macho, the subject of homosexuality came up, and I said, “Fuck fags,” in a sort of disgusted, dismissive, but soft tone of voice. Most of the other guys said, “Yeah. Fuck fags.”

One man said, “Hey, you know in Laguna Beach, they got a fag mayor now! Can you believe that? A fag mayor!” I just shook my head as if to say, “That’s bullshit.” This was 1984, 35 years ago, and it was much more ok to talk like that then than it is now. I was also a lot more homophobic than I am now. I’m not sure I would say that now.

You don’t have to believe the things you say, but it helps to play the part. There aren’t any gay men around, so no one gets hurt. And that talk won’t get anyone hurt because any man who talks that way already is not keen on male homosexuality.

I remember at that same job, this Jamaican guy was walking with me, and I had tied my sweater around my waist. He said, “Damn! You’re embarrassing me!” So I tied it around my neck, and he said, “That’s better.” Apparently he thought tying your sweater around your waist was gay. Maybe it looks like a dress. Sure that’s homophobic but so what? If you are working with a bunch of homophobic guys, you have to play along. You don’t really have a choice.

I sort of agreed with him anyway. From that day on, I never wear my sweater around my waist. I always wear it around my neck instead. I don’t want to look faggy. Hell with that.

One time I was talking about sex with my girlfriend at the time, and I said she stuck her finger up my ass. This caused loud guffaws. One of the guys recoiled and said, “That’s gay! No woman is going to stick her finger up my ass!” I just laughed and said, “So what? I’m getting laid.”

Then another guy (the same guy who talked about the gay mayor) made a huge smile and said, “Is that some good pussy, Bob?” I said, “Yep, real good pussy!” and they all started laughing and saying, “Good pussy!” and slapping each other on the back and giving thumbs up signs.

Of course all of this conversation is banned now as Nazism and evil hatred of women and gays, but the thing is, this is how real masculine man talk and have always talked. And if you go anywhere on Earth, you will find that masculine straight men act approximately this exact same way.

These insane SJW’s are coding what has been normal behavior for thousands of years as evil, hatred, fascism, bigotry, and Nazism. It isn’t any of those things. It’s just the way normal, straight, masculine men normally talk and act, always have, and presumably always will.

I remember back in the wide open 1970’s when things were very liberal and wild, almost all straight men acted exactly like this, and no one cared. There were a few SJW thought police around, but most of the hip people hated them as the killjoys, party-poopers,  prudes, and churchladies that they are. SJW’s are like a dour-faced guy who raids your party and drops a turd in the punch bowl while yelling, “Party’s over!”

Back then, the world would have laughed if SJW’s said, “Mick Jagger said the word bitch. He’s a misogynist and we must boycott all his records!”

If they said, “Johnny Rotten said the words cunt and fag. He’s a misogynist and a homophobe. Everyone boycott his records,” everyone, including every punk on Earth would have laughed right in their faces.

Leftwing men have turned into the most pathetic bunch of sissified girlymen on Earth.

SJW’s have declared war on people, especially men, acting normal.